The
pool of 25 candiates for the Commission must be ready by January 8 or
each redistricting year. The Commission aims to meet a deadline of
August 1 in 2001.

Who’s in Charge of Redistricting?

The
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, created by Proposition
106, which amended the Arizona Constitution to allow a five member
commission of balanced appointments to redraw Arizona's Congressional
and Legislative Districts. The Independent Redistricting Commission is
charged with redrawing fair, competitive districts based on criteria
set forth in Proposition 106. The new districts must also comply with
Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and follow traditional
redistricting principles including compactness, contiguity, and respect
for existing boundaries such as cities, geographic features, and
"communities of interest".

A
fast-growing state, Arizona has gained one congressional district in
each of the past four redistricting cycles, and in 2001 it gained two
more. Republicans currently hold a five-one edge in seats, after
holding a four-one edge for much of the 1980s. From 1993 to 1995,
Democrats held three seats, however, and with the state trending more
Democratic in recent federal elections, redistricting in 2001
could be particularly significant.

The state
legislature consists of 30 districts, each with one state senator and
two state house members. During the last round of redistricting, party
control of the state legislature was split between Democrats and
Republicans. However, party control has less influence now; since new
districts are now drawn by the Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission. The Speaker of the House makes one appointment to the
Commission, followed by the minority leader in the House, the president
of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate, the fifth member
is not affiliated with a political party and is selected by the other
four members.

Legal Issues

In
1992, the Republican-controlled state house and the Democratic state
senate deadlocked on two separate congressional plans. The Republican
group sued in U.S. district court, which instead upheld a third party
intervenor's plan. (The senate plan was rejected because it took
remedial measures to create a Latino-minority district when there was
insufficient evidence that the Latino population met the criteria
established in Thornburg v. Gingles required for such a plan. In the
absence of Voting Rights Act requirements, the court stated that
neutral criteria should be followed. The third party plan was selected
because it adhered best to the neutral districting principles of
compactness, contiguity, serving communities of interest, and
protection of incumbents. The district court's judgment was later
affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1993.

An action was
also filed in U.S. district court requesting the court to redistrict
the state legislative districts because the legislature had failed to
do so. The suit was stayed and later dismissed after the legislature
enacted and successfully precleared a plan after several attempts.

Legislation/Reform Efforts

State
affiliates of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters were among
several civic groups that formed Fair Districts and Fair
Elections (www.fairdistricts.org). The coalition collected more than
200,000 signatures to place a measure on the November 2000 ballot
that established an independent citizen commissio which must draw
more compact districts, governed by non-political factors. The
campaign received editorial support from the state’s major
newspapers. The measure was put on the ballot as Proposition 106 and
passed 56-44 in 2000.

Irregularly Shaped DistrictDistrict

· 87% white; 3% black; 2% Asian; 2% Native American; 13% Hispanic

· Historically Mormon, increasingly retired

· A Republican held the district in 1990, but lost in 1992; Republicans re-took seat in 1994